The nation is still reeling from Sunday’s Molotov cocktail terror attack in Boulder, Colorado, where peaceful demonstrators rallying for the release of hostages held by Hamas were targeted in a brutal act of politically motivated violence. The alleged attacker, Mohamed Sabry Soliman, is an Egyptian national reportedly in the U.S. illegally after overstaying a visa. Now, beyond the carnage itself, what’s drawing attention is how certain political figures — particularly Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) — are spinning the attack to fit unrelated political agendas.
In a baffling twist, Rep. Raskin invoked the attack as a reason to push for stronger gun control laws, despite the fact that no firearms were used. As acting U.S. Attorney J. Bishop Grewell explained, Soliman had tried to buy a firearm, but was unable to do so because of his illegal immigration status — meaning that existing gun laws worked precisely as intended.
Soliman then resorted to homemade Molotov cocktails, injuring at least eight individuals — some seriously — while shouting anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist rhetoric, including explicit declarations that he wanted his victims to die and would “go back and do it again.”
So let’s recap: gun laws prevented him from obtaining a firearm. He used firebombs instead. And Raskin’s takeaway is… we need more gun laws?
As columnist Bob Hoge put it, that’s not leadership — it’s “naked opportunism.”
If any law deserved a spotlight in this tragedy, it’s the one already on the books that wasn’t enforced: immigration law. Soliman should not have been in the U.S. at all. He had overstayed his visa and reportedly remained under the radar — until he planned a terrorist attack. And yet, instead of focusing on securing borders or enforcing immigration laws, many Democrats continue to deflect blame onto peripheral issues, ignoring the obvious root cause that enabled this crime.
I’ll just leave this here for @RepRaskin.
“He said that he had previously tried to purchase a firearm, but resorted to the Molotov cocktails when he could not purchase a gun because he was not a legal citizen.” https://t.co/ap61Dj0rlO pic.twitter.com/GdS6VnqQOC
— Gunther Eagleman™ (@GuntherEagleman) June 2, 2025
Why was Soliman still in the country? Why was there no mechanism to track his expired visa? And why are state policies and federal rhetoric increasingly hostile toward ICE and immigration enforcement efforts?
These are the questions that deserve answers — not another reflexive lecture about gun control.
The police affidavit revealed even more unsettling details. Alongside at least 14 additional unlit Molotov cocktails, investigators found a red gas can, rags, and documents referencing “USAID,” “Israel,” and “Palestine” in Soliman’s car — a silver 2015 Toyota Prius. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has already denied any employment connection to Soliman, but the presence of such paperwork raises legitimate questions about his ideological motivations and possible exposure to propaganda materials, foreign influence, or networks of radicalization.
It’s unclear at this point whether these documents were simply printed materials or if they indicate a deeper ideological or operational link. What is clear is that this case is more than an isolated act of violence — it’s a convergence of national security failures, immigration negligence, and rising ideological extremism.
